Intimate digital forgery civil remedies

Summary#

This bill adds civil remedies for people harmed by non-consensual sexually intimate “digital forgeries” (deepfakes). It expands an existing federal law about intimate images to cover realistic computer-made or altered images or videos that falsely depict a person in intimate situations. The goal is to give victims a federal way to get money, court orders to remove content, and privacy protections in court.

• Main change: Defines “intimate digital forgery” and allows the person shown to sue producers, possessors (with intent to disclose), disclosers, and people who solicit or receive such forgeries in certain circumstances.
• Damages and remedies: Plaintiffs can get set (liquidated) damages ($150,000; $250,000 in certain aggravated cases), actual damages (including some defendant profits), attorney fees, and injunctions to delete or stop displaying the content.
• Privacy protections: Courts may let plaintiffs use a pseudonym, seal or redact filings, and keep the forged images under court control during discovery.
• Timing and limits: Lawsuit must be filed within 10 years after discovery or by the time the plaintiff turns 18, whichever is later. The law does not replace or block state or tribal laws that are at least as protective.

What it means for you#

• People depicted (victims): You can sue in federal court if an intimate digital forgery shows you without your consent and the defendant knew or recklessly disregarded that you did not consent. You may recover money, ask for court orders to remove or stop showing the content, and keep your identity private in the case.
• Creators and possessors of deepfakes: If you knowingly make, possess with intent to disclose, share, or solicit such forgeries involving an identifiable person who did not consent, you can be sued in federal court. Labels that say an image is fake do not prevent a claim.
• Online platforms and hosts: Platforms could face more federal lawsuits because the law covers disclosure and possession that “affects interstate commerce” or uses interstate means. The bill does not directly set platform duties, but platforms may be involved as defendants or third parties in cases.
• Parents and minors: A person may bring a claim up to 10 years after they discover the forgery or after they turn 18, whichever is later. Guardians can bring actions for minors or incapacitated persons.
• Courts and lawyers: Federal courts will handle these new claims. Plaintiffs can seek attorney fees and courts can issue injunctive relief to delete or control the forged content.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

• The bill does not include a published fiscal note in the provided text.
• This change could lead to more federal civil cases, which may increase court workload and related administrative costs.
• Defendants, including individuals and platforms, may face legal costs and damages if found liable.
• Platforms might incur costs responding to litigation, preserving evidence, or changing policies, but the bill text does not quantify these costs.

Proponents' View#

• The bill appears intended to fill a gap by addressing harms from realistic intimate deepfakes that current law may not clearly cover.
• It could give victims stronger and faster civil relief: money, court orders to remove content, and privacy protections in court.
• The liquidated damages amounts create a clear, substantial penalty that could deter harmful production and sharing.
• The law explicitly preserves state and tribal laws, so it can work alongside stronger local protections.

Opponents' View#

• One concern is that key terms are broad or unclear. For example, “indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction … to a reasonable person” may raise questions about proof and expert evidence.
• The bill requires showing that the defendant knew or recklessly disregarded lack of consent in many claims. That may be hard for plaintiffs to prove in some cases.
• It is not fully clear how these federal civil claims will overlap with existing criminal laws or with state civil laws in practice, despite the bill saying it does not preempt them.
• The provision that bars duplicative recovery when there is a judgment under a specified criminal section may create complexity in cases that involve both criminal and civil actions.
• The bill could increase litigation involving platforms, which may lead to higher compliance or moderation costs, though the text does not impose specific platform duties.

What is unclear: The bill text does not include a fiscal estimate, and it does not spell out how courts should resolve technical disputes about whether an image is an “intimate digital forgery” beyond the “reasonable person” test.